Slashdot Mirror
Studios OK Burning Movie Downloads
SirClicksalot writes "The DVD Copy Control Association has released a statement (pdf) announcing that it will make adaptations to the Content Scramble System (CSS) used to protect DVDs. The association, made up of Hollywood studios, consumer electronics and software companies, licenses CSS to the DVD industry to protect content. The changes will allow home users to legally burn purchased movie downloads to special CSS protected DVDs, compatible with existing DVD players."
...that the MPAA and its members aren't quite as evil as the RIAA and its members. I don't think this will really help anything (what prevents me from making a DVD now?), but it's a nice gesture of sincerity. :)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
...to allow us to use our legally purchased content. The movie industry sure is on our side! Maybe next year they will allow us to skip chapters! or fast-forward! Can you imagine how much praise and rejoicing there will be? I can't wait until we have earned their good graces!
stupid
"I'm a Genius!"*
*Not an actual Genius
Anyone want to take a guess at how much these discs are going to cost? I'd wager just about the same price as an actual dvd of the movie itself.
Besides, haven't these morons figured out yet that CSS is borderline useless?
Did we finally get a message through that the majority of us aren't criminals? It's nice to see at least part of the entertainment industry keeping up with the times. Does anyone know the pricing for these movie downloads before I get too far ahead of myself?
Mr. Universe: "They can't stop the signal, Mal. They can never stop the signal."
The articles I'm reading suggest the service will be limited to kiosks. This makes sense, as any consumer based DVD burner that can burn CSS discs will be ultimately possible to modify such that it can copy regular DVDs too.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I thought it was proven that consumers won't purchase particular media in advance back when it was tried with audio CDs. I am beginning to think that a cursory attempt at digital distribution is all they want, making it appear that they are defending their rights while supplementing income with civil lawsuit extortion. Nothing new, but it gets clearer every day to me.
Dammit Otto, you have lupus.
While, sadly, it is encouraging that the MPAA is trying to find ways for end-users to have fair use of the media they purchase, I still have to wonder what sort of DRM and restrictions they will place in/on this new technology. Will I be able to burn multiple copies? Watch without burning? Or, if I misburn myself a coaster, am I simply SOL?
Finally, someone beside Apple recognizes that there is a Way Forward in the digital age. It may not be all we want, but it is a start.
Give these guys credit. Anything that even smells like it would endanger the all powerful Bottom Line and drop share prices is taboo for all major corporations.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
Why are they going through all this trouble? Don't they know that CSS was broken years ago? Haven't they ever downloaded Handbrake?
Crack coming in 3... 2...
What's that? CSS got cracked years ago? Look, behind you - a three-headed terrorist! Think of the children!
*runs*
apterous.org
In a statement, the association said that an updated version of CSS could allow retailers to place kiosks on showroom floors and allow consumers to watch as a digital movie recording is placed on a blank DVD while they wait.
Looks like this is aimed more at the content distributers than the home consumers. now that's the MPAA we've come to know and love!
Why must they put DRM on it? CSS has already been proven not to be effective, so what are the Media Companies afraid of?
This is certainly a step in the correct direction for video downloads. Certainly the movie business must be realizing that customers want freedom to use their products how they wish. Being locked into only "approved" viewing on a pc could only have appealed to a small audience.
I suppose DRM is an attempt to make people buy content more than once, because it certainly will never stop piracy. Studios are finally realizing they can't get away with doing that. Very few, if any, people would be willing to purchase the same movie more than once. If legal video downloading is ever going to catch on, this will make it at least possible
s''$/=\2048;while(){G=29;R=142;if((@a=unqT="C*",_) [20]&48){D=89;_=unqb24,qT,@2 5,_;H=73;O=$b[4]>8^(P=(E=255)&(Q>>12^Q>>4^Q/8^Q))> 8^(E&(F=(S=O>>14&7^O)- U_]/\$$&/g;s/q/pack+/g;eval
b=map{ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;s/...$/1$&/;Q=unqV,qb
^S*8^S>=8
)+=P+(~F&E))for@a[128..$#a]}print+qT,@a}';s/[D-HO
You might think in context that it is deCSS, but it actually prints "Just another perl hacker" unless an obscure race condition happens, in which case it instructs Google to become sentient and begin the elimination of the human race.
Friends don't let friends execute perl scripts they didn't write.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
I can burn stuff to a DVD and play it in a regular DVD player with no problem. Does Nero use illegal tech to make this happen? I understand that bypassing DRM might be illegal, but how is the encoding of the disc to play in a DVD player illegal right now?
nothing
It actually said, "Studios OK Burning Movie Downloaders".
--- What?
There's clearly a big market for video on demand, and the ability to burn movies at a kiosk would greatly reduce the up-front warehousing, shipping, floor space, and back catalog storage. This is a masterful win for potential sales and increasing sales outlets.
Fromt the desciption and my palty knowledge of the DVD format, it seems like they're simply going to make everybody capable of burning in the key area with approved software. The end user part is to allow electronic distribution through a pay-per-download scheme. That scheme can also be used to digitally watermark the downloads and monitor infringing uploads, which is a bonus for them. More people with bigger pipes will be necessary for that to really take hold.
As for the end user burning a CCA encrypted disc, thay pretty much have to keep that part in order to retain much in the way of legal protections. Consumers keep crying "fair use" as a way to format shift, and to them format shifting is pronounced "lost sale". If drop the encryption, it's just like a CD, and there are already services which will format shift your CDs to MP3. All legal through fair use and unencrypted content. By encrypting the content, they keep their DMCA protections - it's not legal anyone else to help you format shift, in any way shape or form. For the vast majority of the population, that means format shifting is done via additional purchase.
Everyone here seems to think that the MPAA is trying to stop pirates, and we bubble with exhaspiration over the fact that the encryption has been broken and is useless. The MPAA doesn't really care about big time pirates all that much - it's a small market, mostly in asia, and mostly in places where the disposable income isn't high enough for the average person to afford a price that would turn a profit for the member organizations. No, the pirates the MPAA is concerned about are the casual ones - the guy next door who will burn his also-tech-unsavvy neighbor a quick copy on his consumer DVD recorder. That's more likely to be a lost sale than some chick dropping $1US on a pirated Malasian jewelcase on a street corner or a pimply faced 14 year old downloading a torrent. They won't admit it in public, but they know its true. Keeping Jim and Billy Bob from swapping discs will generate more revenue than stopping a dozen teenagers from getting an image off the eDonkey.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You will actually have to buy a specific blank DVD for each movie you want to download and burn. For example if you want to watch "Weekend at Bernies" you will have to drive to WalMart and by the specific "Weekend at Bernies - Blank Edition", then drive home and download the movie, then burn it to the blank, then and only then will you be able to play the movie.
To compensate you for your trouble "Weekend at Bernies - Blank Edition" will be between $1.23 and $1.56 cheaper than "Weekend at Bernies" original that will be on sale right next to "Weekend at Bernies - Blank Edition", and between $1.56 and $1.93 cheaper than "Weekend at Bernies - Directors Cut" and "Weekend at Bernies - Now in HD", which will be the next two DVDs over.
The PDF linked from the article clearly states that this will need special blank disks.
Actually, CSS is hardware as well as software, because the key is stored in a spacial place on the disk, and existing disks do not allow that special place to be written. So it is impossible to make CSS-protected disks with current domestic DVD writers.
YOU need to read TFA:
http://www.dvdcca.org/data/css/DVDCCArecordrlsFIN
"Both would require special blank DVD discs that will use the Content Scramble System (CSS) for encryption and will be compatible with the millions of existing DVD players in the marketplace today."
If you had a clue about what you're talking about, you would know that CSS keys cannot be written existing DVD blank media, which is what makes CSS semi-effective in the first place. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to decrypt a DVD to copy it; you could just copy the whole encrypted disk, including keys, which would kinda defeat the entire purpose of CSS.
I am sure it is illegal, but in all honesty, who gives a shit...
They can bitch and moan all they want...
I think pretty much everyone commits a copyright violation atleast once a day wtihout even realizing it or doing anything wrong because of how screwed up the laws are.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
I don't like to flip thru my dvd/cd binder and see handwritten titles. I like to see the movie/music are on the actual disc.
How many people have their DVD or CD collections on shelfs? It's nice to look at. It's easy to find the movie/cd you're wanting. Not the case with download-n-burn processes where, even tho the purchase was legit, still looks like crap and looks copied/stolen. People are much more impressed (and so am I) with a shelf of a few hundred movies all in their nice cases than a bunch of dvd-r's sitting in a spindle.
I'll always be for going to the store and buying my media if it costs the same as teh digitally delivered version. No compressed downloads for me. I can guarantee the movie downloads aren't filling DVD9 discs. And if they're not, you're losing quality. Why pay for less?
Future ruler of a small Asian-Pacific island
Can we please get an automatic -1, Troll/Flamebait mod on any post that uses terms such as "Slashdot position", or "slashbot"? Contrary to what some believe, there are actually differing opinions here. There is no "Slashbot position".
In fact, the rest of the parent post pretty much confirms the subject line: "whine", "whining", "whiny babies", "cheap bastards"...
Grow up.
For the record, charge me money for a product with no restrictions and no ads. I'll pay. I'll pay a lot, as is evidenced by my large CD collection that I purchased during the Napster days, before all this non-standard DRM crap started showing up on CDs. And my large VHS collection. And my large book collection. Guess I'm not a "Slashbot", whatever that's supposed to be.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
See, here's one way to look at the problem. Let's say I subscribe to HBO. HBO plays "Tears of the Sun," to use an example. I record it on my VCR. That's legal. If I take an A/V output from the satellite box and record it, that's fair use as well. If I then convert the VCR or whatever recording and convert it to a DIVX so I can play it on my PC, that's legal. But if I skip the work myself and grab a copy off the Internet, that's illegal.
The person who is effectively breaking the law by default is the guy who is uploading the movie, not the person downloading it. That isn't to say that the guy downloading it isn't breaking the law as well, but there are plenty of legitimate ways that he could have obtained the same exact result, legally, making the entire argument stupid.
The aim of this move is simple: costs saving for the majors:
....
- They don't need to edit a DVD structure with bonuses and such
- They donc have to create the media, the jacket and such
- They don't have to manage media storage
- They don't have to manage media transportation
But you pay the same: They earn 35% more.
Same for downloadable manazines and news papers: same price, but the company saves paper, printing costs, transportation, unsold idtems,
BTW, what is this "Slashdot position" you speak of?
It's kind of like the Missionary Position, but without the other person.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
... and for downloaded content.
I'd be fine with a "no-nonsense license" akin to Borland's:
"You may rip, burn, format-shift, edit, mangle, karioke, or whatever the hell else you want to do with this CD or DVD, within the privacy of your own personal equipment. However, you may not redistribute it in any form, except as permitted under Fair Use."
That's all either users or the content providers really need. Watermark the damned things if you like, I don't care. But don't inconvenience me beyond what I expect from an ordinary non-DRM'd purchased hardcopy, or I won't buy it at all.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?